Thursday, March 28, 2024

Goodies to Go ™
June 12, 2000– Newsletter #84

************************************************************

Goodies to Go ™

June 12, 2000–Newsletter #84

************************************************************

Please visit http://www.htmlgoodies.com

************************************************************

Greetings, Weekend Silicon Warriors,


Usually the newsletters are done a week in advance, but then
an event occurs that I think I want to comment on straightaway.
The suggested splitting of Microsoft is such an event. I have
found that choosing Microsoft as a topic, no matter what the
content, draws fire from somewhere. If I say positive things,
someone writes and asks if I am on the payroll. If I say
negative things, someone writes and tells me to stop bashing.
It’s not exactly a win-win situation. So, I thought I would go
ahead and just write out my feelings about the recent ruling.
Take them as just that, my opinions.


Did you hear…


If the U.S. Congress has its way, soon an e-signature, similar
to what happens when you purchase a product with a credit card,
will become as binding as the signature on any contract.
Senator Spencer Abraham (R-Michigan) is sponsoring the bill.
If it takes, the speed of business just got speedier.


There was a lot of talk a short while back about how a lot of
people working with the Web are underpaid “drones”. The
concern sparked talk of unionizing. Well, the Writers Guild
of America has made the first step in offering a contract for
those who write for the Web. The Guild hopes to standardize
pay rates and benefits for those making their living writing
in cyberspace.


If you’re expecting to get all of your coverage of the Olympics
over the Web, forget it. You’ll be able to get stats, but no
video or audio. NBC paid over 700 million for the rights and
not even they will be able to air their tape on the Web. The
reason is as much for keeping secrets as it is a concern over
copyright and registration. NBC will tape delay big sections
of the games and they do not want those section running early.
The problem is that these NBC rules only deal with Internet
companies in the US. If you head to the CBC in Canada, you
may get some tape. NBC is in contact with other broadcast
houses to try and stop that.


Now onto today’s topic…


The hammer has fallen.


Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson has ordered Microsoft broken up
into two sections as a result of its being found guilty of
violation the Sherman Act barring predatory monopolistic
practices.


Does that sound about right?


If all the appeals, which are sure to come, fail and Jackson’s
findings are upheld, Microsoft will be broken into two sections.
One will deal with the operating systems (PC, network, server),
and the other will deal with the…well…everything else.
That’s the basic breakdown.


In addition, Microsoft will be forced to (Jackson’s words):


…stop threatening companies not to use rival companies


…stop creating software that must be used under a Windows OS


…stop creating software that bars competitor’s products


from working under Windows


…force the operating system company to treat all hardware/
software companies equally


…bar the two companies from reuniting for ten years



Shortly after the ruling, I received an email letter from an
HTML Goodies reader that had the subject line, “We got him!”


We? We who? Was this person part of the justice department?


Him? Him who? Bill Gates? I thought this case was against
Microsoft.


Yes, legally, it is against Microsoft, but no one in the
media, or the public, sees it that way. Other people testified
in the case; I didn’t see their taped depositions. There are
only ten jillion Microsoft employees; no one seemed to be
overly happy that a ruling had been brought down upon them.


I guess this is the thing that bothers me about this whole
case. I agree that Microsoft did some pretty nasty things. I
think they did violate the first and second part of the
Sherman Act. I also think they strong-armed some vendors. I
will grant you all of that. In addition, I think they should
be punished, not broken up. The history of breaking up
“monopolies” will, I think, bear me out on this stance. Ma
Bell jumps to mind. Yes, I have heard the reasons why people
believe this won’t work out like the baby bells, but I’m not
convinced quite yet.


The concern I have about this case is not that Microsoft was
found guilty of some wrongdoings. It’s that the case always
seemed to be way too personal for my liking. Even Penfield’s
language in the ruling bothered me. He wrote “Microsoft does
not yet concede that any of its business practices violated
the Sherman Act.” Microsoft claims they have “done nothing
wrong”.


That, to me, goes to the heart of the public opinion side of
the case. It seemed to me like, at any time, if Microsoft had
simply buckled and admitted doing wrong, the feds would have
gone easier on the company. Of course Microsoft didn’t admit
any wrongdoing. That would have been stupid. It would have
killed any chance for appeal and would have been equal to
giving up. I don’t think the Justice Department saw it that
way. They wanted a public apology. They wanted Microsoft to
hang its head and give a heart-felt “I’m sorry”. It would
never have happened. It never will happen.


The case always seemed so personal. Those who gave interviews
always equated getting Microsoft with getting Bill Gates. Now
that the Justice department has its victory (for now at least,)
pedants are proclaiming victory over Gates. There always seemed
to be a shroud of vendetta hanging over the case. Bill had done
something horrible and now we shall have our revenge. It is a
dish best served cold.


As the reader pointed out…”we got him”.


C’mon. Really?


So far we’re up to two years of this legal wrangling and I’ll
bet at least another year or two of appeals are ahead of us.
For the sake of argument, let’s say the breakup occurs and
Microsoft A and Microsoft B are in place. Gates can only head
one of the companies. I’ll bet he goes with B, the one that
does not deal with the operating system.
Free choice has been restored and, according to the government,
free choice is in place.


But what if…


Now consumers will have the choice of multiple operating
systems when they buy their computers. What happens if, as I
assume it will happen, Windows is the top choice? Furthermore,
what if Windows is the top choice by a huge margin? Remember
that the Sherman Act (and the subsequent 1914 Clayton Antitrust
Act) does not forbid monopolies, they only forbid monopolies
gained through predatory business practices. You personally
may not like the Windows operating system, but what if the
majority of people out there do?


Maybe there’s another case because the lingering effect of
what Microsoft did in the 90’s is affecting buying practices
now? Another lawsuit?


I have heard it said that if consumers had the choice, they
would not choose Windows as often because all of the viruses
out there are attacking Windows and other Microsoft software.


Well, of course the viruses are attacking Microsoft software.
It’s the most popular software, thus you can get the biggest
hacker bang for your buck. If Linux starts popping up on a
ton of computers, I guarantee you’ll start to see viruses
created that exploit holes in that operating system.


The people at Netscape are thrilled. Former CEO James
Barksdale said he felt vindicated. If the ruling goes as
outlined, either there will be no Internet Explorer coupled
with Windows operating systems, or both browsers will be on
the operating system. In addition, operating systems that
could not run Internet Explorer before, like Linux, will now
be able to. The ruling stated that Microsoft software would
have to be able to run on all systems.


Now, consumers have choice. Not that they didn’t before,
since browsers are free, but now the choice is enforced.
Internet Explorer isn’t sitting there waiting to be used.
Again, what if Internet Explorer is the top choice? I mean,
what if it is the top choice by a huge margin? What if market
forces literally spell the end of Netscape?


I am asking you to think about this ruling in the future
because these things might happen. I say this because I
cannot believe that Microsoft’s success can be attributed,
in most part, to its predatory practices. There has to be
something to the product they created.


I say that because when all is said and done, people have
always had the ability to choose. No one had to take Windows
software. People could have all bought Apple computers. They
didn’t. There’s a reason why Windows became so popular, and
it is not totally because Microsoft followed certain business
practices. Microsoft puts out a product that people like to
use, like it or not. In the future, if this ruling stands and
does what it is expected to do, create a more free-choice
climate, what will we all say if Microsoft shakes out as the
true victor?


It’s hard for me to believe that Microsoft is what it is
today because of advertising and business practices. Somewhere
in there, there must be a decent product or else people
would not use it. I don’t care how much advertising I force
upon you or how many choices I take away from you, if you
hate spinach, I am not going to turn you into Popeye.


Microsoft wants this to go to the Supreme Court. Judge
Jackson must agree in order for it to get that high. I’ll
bet it does. If the ruling stands, and “free choice” is forced
upon the software market, will things really even out or will
consumers ultimately choose just one company?


If that one company chosen is Microsoft, what then? Do we all
accept it, or do we break up the company even further?


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


That’s that. Thanks so much for reading.


Joe Burns, Ph.D.


And Remember: Summer’s here and that means swimming. You
know that you’re not suppose to swim for at least 30 minutes
after you eat, right? Wrong. This urban myth was attributed
to the Red Cross, yet continues to flourish even though the
Red Cross flatly denies they ever said it. To make matters
worse, the official Red Cross stance on all exercising,
including swimming, is that people “receive proper
nourishment” before starting the exercise.

Go figure.

Archive Home Page.

Get the Free Newsletter!

Subscribe to Developer Insider for top news, trends & analysis

Popular Articles

Featured